>> productions assistance for "inside washington" was provided by albritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. this week on "inside washington," is it possible? a bipartisan deal on guns. >> these reforms devote a vote in congress. >> what about immigration? what we want immigration reform and we want it now. we wanted today, not tomorrow. >> and then there is the obama budget. >> when it comes to deficit reduction, i have already met republicans halfway. quite the same plant in a new suit of clothes? >> the american people know you

cannot spend money you do not have. >> and north korea. at the passing of the iron lady, margaret thatcher. the in lady of the western world. -- the iron lady of the western world. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- months since sandy hook elementary school in newtown, connecticut, the killing ground for an apparently deranged young man. the families of the victims of gun violence have been leading the effort to prod congress in enacting the first gun-control legislation in years. in chicago, the first lady spoke of attending the funeral of a

young lady who until a week after the inauguration. >> there is a reason all of us are on this earth. i urge them to use their lives to give meaning. >> the appeals of sandy hook family members moved one senator to tears. >> i am a parent. i have a grandson. [indiscernible] >> that is west virginia democrat's joe machin, who along with republican pat toomey is sponsoring a bill to extend background checks. believe it or not, the legislation has passed its first a filibuster.past

charles, what are the chances of this bill passing? >> i think we will get some extension of background checks and they will try to have some guarantee there will not be a national registry. it will be a very, very small change. nothing like what people had envisioned after newtown, which was going to be a ban of certain weapons and on large clips of ammunition. i think -- considering what the ambitions were at the beginning -- it is something of a debate. >> lois, where do we go from here? >> we have a lot of debate on both sides of the floor. both sides have vowed to add amendments that will go nowhere, such as revisiting the ban on automatic weapons. i agree with charles. 86% of the american people want extended background checks and i

think that is all that are going to get. " still, the american people are for this. is it just possible the power of public opinion and the emotional impact of the families on the hill could overcome the power of the nra? >> in this case it may, and it seems to already have to some extent. to have the families of not just newtown, but other massacres all over the hill is a very powerful thing. there have been the short-term victories before. the nra is a very injuring opponent. what is interesting to me is -- a very enduring opponent. what is interesting to me is tot joe manchin got toomey go along with him on this. and all the ads against toomey blocking the legislation went off the air, which to toomey me tells to was really worried about this in pennsylvania.

>> is there any thing unconstitutional in this as the nra claims? >> yet, and that is not really the issue. this is about not just background checks, limiting ammunition, magazines. the significant thing this time is the grassroots movement for some kind of gun control. not about of newtown, but all over the country. while there may not be enough to defeat the nra, the nra does not have the skill to alter itself anymore. >> i will call your attention to the behind the current -- curtain column from "politico" on friday. the newtown family several against staff only meetings. they will not do them. they insisted on sitting down with the senators themselves. they are mostly nonpolitical, but quite accomplished in their

own fields. they are a unique moral authority to prod senate action. you saw joe machin's -- joe manchin's reaction. >> i did. but that is no way to legislate. the idea is we have to do something. no, that is not how you legislate. we have a 10-year ban on exactly what feinstein and others are demanding. we had it in place for the mid 1990's for a decade. the study commissioned by the department of justice showed it had no effect. that is the issue. >> it was not studied -- >> it said it had no significant effect. >> what the study said there was no causal relationship shown one way or the other between an assault weapons ban, one way or the other. >> that means it had no effect. it is no way to legislate.

let me say this. we have the constitutional right to petition our government. to petition our government. that is what they are doing, petitioning their government. no way to legislate? >> you do not deny that -- >> no, i am not arguing that. of course you have the right to petition, to demonstrate. when you are looking at actual legislation -- >> i want to say something here. you are suggesting that you look tears, thathin's that somehow affected him. right after the newtown massacre, he said, we have to change things, see if we cannot do something. he comes from a big guns state and he deserves some credit. >> i do think we have to change things, but i want change that will have an effect. i think the more effective thing we can do is control what

psychotic people like the tucson shooter, the guy in aurora would do and the fact that they are out -- >> i would argue that it is not being driven by emotion, but by cultural shift. i think the american people are ready to do something. there is support for the cultural shift. why not legislated? >> moreover, i do not think it is a matter of focusing on the mass shootings and people who are psychotic. a lot of people have been victimized by gun violence who are not psychotic shooters -- >> guns in the house. kids kill themselves. >> this may not be a way to enact laws, but this is from the behind the curtain column. "they just tell their heartbreaking stories with a demand for action that is respectful, but forceful.

many of them can get a meeting with any senator they want, whenever they want." >> they are taking their problems directly to the people -- >> have we ever seen one disaffected this quickly? this effective this quickly? one was the last time you saw members respond emotionally like this? >> when i was on the hill, i remember the right-to-life movement at the time of the supreme court decision, very effectively making the same kind of emotional arguments. i have seen it before. during the civil rights period, you had people on the hill making these appeals. this is how it should be. i do not discount the legislation that will pass with background checks. there is no passed yet. there will be something. it will be a good step forward. >> i want to suggest something charles said when you are talking about the mentally ill. one of the amendments being

produced, i think by lindsey gramm, i'm not sure -- i'm not sure. let me strike the lindsey gramm part. one of the republican amendments would allow people to be institutionalized as a danger to themselves or others to now be able to get weapons unless they can show they are in imminent danger. that is just -- pardon the expression -- lunacy. ini think the biggest issue my mind for the nra is they do not want a national registry because they do not believe someone who is using guns in a responsible way should be some out in some federal registry. i think the compromise they have come up with is interesting where it will be held by a dealer. it will be a state registry. but if someone wants to go back and get the records, they can. >> what about gun shows? what about the transfer of weapons from one person to another? >> john mccain himself was for

an expansion of background checks closing each gun show loopholes. >> if of one to give charles a gun and of charles wanted to give me a gun and give each other guns, that would be -- >> it would be healthier that way because we would have deterrence. saying, giveys are each other guns. but you have to find a third part -- third party. only family can pass down guns. >> what else is in the legislation as proposed now >> -- proposed now? toomey arechin and trying to get past is this very big elephant in the room, which is the national registry. >> there is the ban on assault weapons and large magazines. harry reid said almost

immediately he would not support the ban on assault weapons because there was not enough support for it. the ban on magazines would fail, too, and it is certainly true that most people do not get killed by a large magazine. but when you look of these massacres, that is what allows them to sort of mode down large numbers of people. >> joe biden argues that if you only have a 10-round -- if he only had a 10-round magazine, in the time that he took to reload, they may have saved the children. >> at the beginning, people said this does a lot of elements, including the mental health and the video and hollywood and all that stuff. the newtown kid was living in a peoplehere he mowed down hours and hours a day. a kind of psychic numbing in training. that shooter in aurora who shot up that theater, the university psychiatrist had reported him as homicidal and dangerous to the

police. nothing was done. >> immigration and the budget. can we get a deal on them? >> i do not believe that these ideas are optimal, but i am willing to accept them as part of a compromise, if and only if they contained protections for the most vulnerable americans. >> the president often says his policies will cut the deficit trillion over 10 years. that sadly is not true. >> congressman paul ryan talking about the president's budget. it would cut the social security and medicare, something that does not sit well with democrats, people like nancy pelosi. people are saying this is a carbon carbon -- carbon copy of the deal offered to republicans in december. what makes the republican -- what makes the president think that the republicans will agree to the grand bargain they have already turned down, lois? >> he is just trying to get the

conversation going again. he does not care what the liberals think right now. he is just trying to get some conversation going. he is looking at his legacy. he is singing, i do not care what the democrats are saying. let's get moving on this. >> charles -- are you prepared to do the same this week? >> no, no. >> you can do that. >> can i answer, or do i wait for you guys to speak up? hughes said he is willing to cut entitlements -- you said he is willing to cut entitlements. in fact, he agreed to a change that every commission, a democrat and republican, has recommended because it is a of a, simply a correction technical error. we started orienting inflation to social security in the nixon years. it gives an unwarranted,

unintended bonus. this is a correction. look, i think it is a great thing he agreed to it. it is the smallest of all possible -- i will tell you how small it is. it is a quarter of a penny on $1. so, it is the beginning of something, but if he says it is the end, we will not have any agreement whatsoever. >> you will have to have some movement on the republican side as well. you cannot just put the budget that they put up there that calls for cuts, cuts, cuts and do nothing about raising revenue. you just cannot do it. their budget is unrealistic as anything that you put on the table. >> here is the compromise one can envision -- >> of course there is a compromise. and that is the key. if they are working with good will, there is the possibility to find something. >> absolutely, good will. >> is he prepared to fail? >> i think charles is right.

he has a lot of people in his own party ticked off at him already. i think that is very clear. there were very interesting columns by david bruck and fareed zakaria, talking about the huge tidal wave talking about regulation and governments involvements in the economies since reagan and thatcher. but the difference is we have these incredibly stratified societies where the lower class people cannot climb people up and " -- upper class people make more and more money. let me just finish. tax cuts will not fix that. but we have to do is address these problems and it may involve more government spending. >> let me move to immigration. thousands of people up at the

capitol this week, urging congress to pass immigration reform. we know republicans can read exit polls. we know that senator mark rubio can -- is going for a big time. charles krauthammer? >> a lot of people will listen. look, i wrote a column in 2006, long before it became an election issue, that the way we can solve this, get a huge consensus of the american people is enforcement at the border and amnesty. this have this sense that $11 billion is the last coverts of illegals we will legalize, they will say it in overwhelming numbers yes. what's rubio has been trying to do is put that in to practice. in the has been seen

gang of eight, he is saying everybody who is here can stay, which is a big session -- a concession. only when you have the borders closed to u.s. of the road to the green card. that is the question, will be president agree to that? " what do you think of the chances that marker rubio is taking, going all in on this? >> i would say medium. he is putting measures in this bill that makes the bar extremely high to a path to citizenship. he has also insisted on levels of job expertise is to get a green card. >> what do you think? >> i do not think he will be terribly hurt by it, but there will be pushed back by republicans. >> definitely. >> on the right. the question is can people like boehner bring them along to some kind of deal? >> i honestly do not think there

is a big risk for him. even after the election, even right wing by radio was saying, let's do something on immigration. we are losing, we are losing, we are losing. i do not think it is a big deal. >> north carry -- north korea is continuing its low trends against the united states. >> we will take all necessary steps with our alliances in the region. >> south korea and the united states up and morning this week that north korea could conduct a missile test launch without warning. the missile was a possible range that would threaten american military installations in japan, okinawa, and swamp. what are they up to? -- japan, okinawa, and guam. what are they up to? >> i think he is trying to show that he can be in charge and he is trying to show the military in north korea that he deserves

respect. the question is, will someone do something stupid with those weapons they have that's all it takes is one missile, and this things -- and this thing gets trigger. >> there's a history here. in the 1960's they tried to kill the president of south korea. p 1970's they tried again. .hey blew up an airliner president clinton and george bush tried to make concessions, and still they are doing the same thing. >> they actually killed the mother of the current president of south korea. these guys do not fool around. the scariest news of the week was one congressman in hearing said the defense intelligence agency, the intelligence arm of the defense department, has concluded with moderate confidence that pyongyang has

the ability to put a nuke on top of domicile, which no one imagined was possible. -- on top of a mistrial, which no one imagined was possible. it made everyone's hair stand on and because they probably will have several rocket launches during the next week or two. if you can imagine if there is a new comet that could hit open out or south korea or japan or a majorm, then we have nuclear problem. if our show is not on next week, he will know we got it wrong. >> what is the percentage of them doing that? >> we do not know. we do not have any intelligence there. this is the most secretive society and in the world. what is very unnerving for the u.s. and western allies is we of such poor intelligence there that we have no idea what they are doing. i agree that this guy is 30 years old and he is trying to

flex internal and extern a muscle. >> you heard from the chairman of the joint chiefs -- you have to assume the worst case. that is the way we are -- that is what we are foster the way we are. but if they hit okinawa with a nuclear weapon, what happens to them? they have a nuclear problem. >> they have a nuclear problem the likes of which they have never seen. >> what about the chinese? >> all week long, they have been making different kinds of sounds. for the first time, they have been somewhat disdainful about the north koreans. in anless they do that relatively benign way -- but they still do that in a relatively benign way. when the chinese really want to apply pressure -- and we have seen them do that in japan, all whole bunch of countries in the region -- they are ferocious. >> we understand they do not want to unify korea. but they do not want this

irritation. >> they do not want a career thats capili, come ouwithuk. is why it has never m it does everything to control the fuel going to its satellite. it has never acted on that. it never will. >> all right. margaret thatcher, dead at 87. is not returning. >> whether you like your or not, whether you agreed with her or not, once she started to speak, it was impossible to ignore her. for nearly 20 years, she towered over british politics and at tis,ri politics as well. she died this week at the age of 87, and even today she ignites passions in the united kingdom.

she and president reagan were political soulmates. >> i agree she changed her country. there are not a leap -- there are not a lot of leaders who could say that. she saved it from socialism. together with reagan and helmut kohl and the pope, john paul' second ii, they bury communism. it was the reigning ideology in the world. now it is dead. she was absolutely historic. >> but when she died, there were tears in some corners of the british nation. >> -- there were cheers in some corners of the british nation. >> i happen to be a senate aide on the day that she walked on the senate floor with bob dole, the minority leader of britain. and it was sort of like --

and she was such a giant at the end of it on the world stage, but she was not even an afterthought. such tremendous, tremendous personality. >> and what a backbone. > reading all of these obits about her, it was interesting to see how powerful she was come up a principle, how uncompromising, and out in the end that did her in also. she believed that she could never be wrong and she alienated her own party, to come up in the end. >> she transcended gender, and i think that was her greatest gift to women. she was so powerful on the global stage, that you stop looking at her as a woman or a token. she was a powerful player who will spend the cold war. >> she was not the daughter of, sister of.

she was the daughter of a grocer who came out of nowhere and it was not only the gender issue. it was also a class issue. she was scorned. the headlines of britain said "the grocer's daughter did x." she did not only defeat the communists on one end. she also on did the upper class twits of her own party. >> the leader of the house of lords said she helped big burden off its knees, but changed its place in the world, transform the shape of the political debate. cannot argue with that. >> that is not what the labor party is shouting right now. >> you get the last word. see you next week.